(P.K. Misra, J.)

The dispute in these cases relates to C.M.S. Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee, a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. Unfortunately (for the Society that is) there are two Groups claiming formation of separate committees.

For convenience, the members of the Society now supporting the Appellant Committee are referred to as “the Appellant Group” and the Group opposed to them are referred to as “the Respondents Group” (except of course the official respondents, who shall be referred to by their official designation).

2. Apparently, there was no feud before 1999 and thereafter the Society seems to be mired in legal wranglings. Election for the Society was conducted for the period 2000 to 2003 on 22.12.1999 and Form VII was filed by the Appellant before the District Registrar on 23.12.1999, who took Form VII on file. Such action of the District Registrar, taking Form VII on file, was challenged by one Shri. David Stephen, belonging to the Respondents Group, by filing W.P.No.14402 of 2000. The said writ petition was dismissed by observing that the concerned person can file appeal before the appellate authority (Inspector General of Registration). However, no appeal was preferred, but a representation was made. The District Registrar (in charge) by considering the rival submissions, at that stage, observed that the list of members furnished by the Committee under the Presidentship of Shri.G. Jabamani, belonging to Appellant Group, shall be taken on file. It was observed by the District Registrar that 18 persons (belonging to the Respondents Group), who were claiming that they were newly inducted members of the Society, were not members and therefore the claim made by them was not acceptable. W.P.(MD)No.20121 of 2000 and W.P.(MD)No.1701 of 2001 were filed by the “Committee” represented by S. David Stephen and one individual J. David respectively belonging to the Respondents Group, which were dismissed by order dated 11.12.2001. Against the decision of the learned single Judge, the Respondents Group filed W.A.(MD)Nos.2969 of 2001 and 331 of 2002 respectively. While the matter stood thus, election for the further period 2003-2006 was conducted by the Office Bearers belonging to the Appellant Group, which was not specifically challenged in any Forum, and such Committee Members continued. In the meantime, a Division Bench, while taking up the two writ appeals, referred the matters to the Full Bench. Subsequently, the Full Bench after rendering its opinion, directed that the Appeals be posted before the Division Bench. Ultimately W.A.Nos.2969 of 2001 and 331 of 2002, filed against the order dated 11.12.2001 in W.P.Nos.20121 of 2000 and 1701 of 2001 were dismissed by the Division Bench as per order dated 14.9.2005, by observing as follows:-

"4. . . . these appeals are dismissed with liberty to file civil suits. We make it clear that the appellants can also challenge the order of the Registrar dated 13.11.2000 in the Civil Suit, subject to the objections that may be raised by the respondents."

2.1 On 3.12.2005, election was again held under the aegis of the Appellant Group for the period 2006-2009 and intimation in Form VII was submitted to the District Registrar on 12.12.2005. Thereafter, on the basis of the observation made, the 6th respondent, namely, V. Arul, belonging to the Respondents Group, filed O.S.No.20 of 2006 for himself and on behalf of other members of the School Committee challenging the order of the District Registrar dated 13.11.2000. While such suit was pending, fourth Respondent S. David Stephen, belonging to very same Group, filed Review Application No.12 of 2006 against the order in W.A.Nos.2969 of 2001 and 331 of 2002. Such Review Application was disposed on 21.2.2006, by deleting the last sentence of para 4 of the abovesaid order. It was further observed that all other points could be raised before the Civil Court. It was spec